Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental … 2015 US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth Final...

September 2015 US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth Final EIS 11-1

Responses to Comments on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

The US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (December 2014) is

incorporated by reference and is considered part of the Final EIS.

In December 2014, the Draft EIS was distributed to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

distribution list, cooperating and participating agencies, and members of the Project Advisory Committee.

The document was available for review in hard copy at local libraries and local government offices and

was available in electronic format on the project website.

The public comment period for the Draft EIS extended from December 22, 2014 to February 5, 2015. An

open house/public hearing was held on January 22, 2015. Attendees of the open house/public hearing

were invited to provide comments on the proposed project through comment forms or oral statements to

a court reporter.

Comments were received from five government agencies and 12 members of the public. Responses to

these comments are provided in this chapter in the following order:

■ US Army Corps of Engineers

■ US Department of Interior

■ US Environmental Protection Agency

■ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

■ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

■ Public Comments

All comments received on the Draft EIS were considered in identifying the preferred alternative and in the

development of the Final EIS. Two commenters (the US Environmental Protection Agency and one

member of the public) expressed a preference regarding the Straight Option and the Curved Setback

Option; both preferred the Straight Option.

Where appropriate, text has been incorporated into the Final EIS in response to comments on the Draft

EIS. As such, responses to comments refer to relevant sections of the Final EIS.


11.1 US Army Corps of Engineers


Response to Comment A: Section 4.5 of the Draft EIS described the potential for future development in

the area of the new intersection at 2nd Avenue and the interchange at MN 135 as limited due to the

location of the mine boundary, ore formation, and topography. The Draft EIS concluded that the preferred

alternative would not cause noticeable change in land use within the study area. Mining in the existing

easement agreement area would commence and be active for a number of decades, which is consistent

with local and regional comprehensive plans.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will purchase surface and mineral rights where

needed to preserve the roadway in perpetuity. Therefore, the potential for future relocation of the

roadway should be minimized, and the cost/impact of relocation would not be borne by MnDOT. The

preferred alternative avoids the current permit to mine boundary, minimizing conflicts with mining.

Cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable mining are addressed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS. Given

no new impacts have been identified, the impact summary table has not been revised for land use

impacts.

Response to Comment B: MnDOT has been in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

regarding listed species. Information and evaluation of the gray wolf has been added to Chapter 5 of the

Final EIS. Correspondence with USFWS is included in Appendix C.

Response to Comment C: Construction of the bridge over the Rouchleau Pit will require floating barge

platforms, temporary coffer dams for dewatering around the two pier locations, and silt

curtain/containment devices. The quantities and detail of the pier type/size and the materials to be used

will be determined during final design with input of the contractor, Construction Manager/General

Contractor (CMGC), and MnDOT. Final design commenced in March 2015 and will continue through

August 2015 for the bridge, with construction anticipated to start in September. Design details, to the

extent they are known, have been provided to the US Army Corps of Engineers during the review of the

wetland permit application.


Response to Comment D: MnDOT is in the process of negotiating acquisition of surface and mineral

(ferrous) rights for the right-of-way needed to preserve the roadway in perpetuity via fee acquisition and

permanent easement. Acquiring both the surface and mineral rights means that MnDOT cannot be forced

to move the new roadway. It is possible that a mining company could offer to buy the surface and mineral

rights under the new road alignment and pay to relocate the road, but MnDOT would have to choose to

accept that arrangement. MnDOT’s cost estimates included estimated values for acquiring mineral rights

via permanent easement.

Response to Comment E: The refined alignment for the preferred alternative is described in Chapter 2 of

the Final EIS. The Straight Option is now included as part of the preferred alternative. Appendix B provides

the current layout and profile. Final design commenced in March 2015, and design adjustments will

continue through the end of the year and into 2016, resulting in two construction packages, one for the

large bridge and one for the remainder of the project work.

Response to Comment F: A Level 2 delineation has been conducted and used to further refine wetland

impact quantities and update the permit application. Temporary wetland impacts have been identified in

the permit application/wetland replacement plan submitted to the USACE (Appendix F). No indirect

impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources have been identified as a result of this project.

Response to Comment G: MnDOT appreciates the US Army Corps of Engineers concurrence on the

preferred alternative. It will continue coordination with the Corps regarding the final impact assessment

and mitigation plan, including the final step in the NEPA/Section 404 concurrence process (Concurrence

Point #4).

Operations Division Regulatory Branch (2011 -00769-DWW)

If you have any questions, please contact Daryl W. Wierzbinski in our Duluth office at (218) 720-5291 Ext 35401 or [email protected]. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above.

Sincerely,

Chad Konickson Chief, Regulatory Branch

Copy furnished: Virginia Laszewski, EPA, District 5 Chicago, IL Phil Forst, FHWA, St. Paul, MN Andrew Horton, USFWS, Bloomington, MN Sarma Straumanis, MnDoT, St. Paul, MN Jim Brist, MPCA, St. Paul, MN Allyz Kramer, SEH, Duluth, MN


Page 3 of 3


11.2 US Department of Interior


Response to Comment A: MnDOT appreciates the Department of Interior reviewing the de minimis

determination. It has been noted in the Final EIS that there will be negligible impacts to the activities,

features, and attributes of the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area (OHVRA), a Section 4(f)

resource, consistent with a de minimis determination.


11.3 US Environmental Protection Agency


Response to Comment A: A reformatted summary table of Draft EIS alternatives and impacts is included

in Appendix H as requested, which adds a column for the Existing US 53 Alternative. It was clearly noted

in the Draft EIS as an introduction to the tables in question that the Existing US 53 Alternative had no

resource impacts except the cost to buy mineral rights and thus was not included in the table.


Response to Comment B: A reformatted summary table of Draft EIS alternatives and impacts is included

in Appendix H as requested, which adds a column for the Straight and Curved Setback Options.

Response to Comment C: Comment noted. MnDOT has included the Straight Option as part of the

preferred alternative.

Response to Comment D: MnDOT is in the process of negotiating acquisition of surface and mineral rights

for the right-of-way needed to preserve the roadway in perpetuity via fee acquisition and permanent

easement. Mineral rights are needed from three landowners including RGGS, DNR, and Penobscot Iron

Ore, LLC. Acquiring both the surface and mineral rights means that MnDOT cannot be forced to move the

new roadway. It is possible that a mining company could offer to buy the surface and mineral rights under

the new road alignment and pay to relocate the road, but MnDOT would have to choose to accept that

arrangement. MnDOT’s cost estimates included estimated values for acquiring mineral rights via

permanent easement.


Response to Comment E: Since the Draft EIS was published, there has been further coordination between

MnDOT, DNR, and SLLCRRA regarding the future Mesabi Trail alignment in order to facilitate trail

continuity between the severed trail sections that would result from mining activity in the easement

agreement area. MnDOT has made allowance for the future Mesabi Trail to parallel the new US 53

alignment between the new Landfill Road access and the existing trail segment west of the Rouchleau Pit.

As described in the Final EIS (Section 2.3.1), the Mesabi Trail connection has been identified on an old

railroad corridor owned by SLLCRRA that would fill the remaining gap in the trail between the new and old

Landfill Road access points. The realigned Mesabi Trail would accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and

snowmobiles. Two box culverts will also be constructed by MnDOT as part of this project to provide grade

separation for the new trail crossings at MN 135 and at Landfill Road.


Response to Comment F: Section 5.5 of the Final EIS identifies the latest estimate of wetland impact

based on changes to the preferred alternative, Level 2 delineation, and minor changes to the

construction limits. As a result of project changes between the time the Water Resources Technical

Report (November 2013) and Draft EIS (December 2014) were completed, neither document provides

accurate estimates at this time. Thus, rather than repeating outdated information, Section 5.5 of the Final

EIS presents wetland impact estimates that were submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers as part of

the Section 404 permit application in June 2015 and supplemental information in August 2015.

Response to Comment G: Table 5.5-1 in the Final EIS presents the acres of wetland impact to two

decimal places.

Response to Comment H: A reformatted summary table of Draft EIS alternatives and impacts, including

wetland impacts, is included in Appendix H, as requested.

Response to Comment I: Consistent with state and federal requirements, wetlands have not and will not

be proposed for use as stormwater pollution prevention devices.


Response to Comment J: See the explanation of the areas of evaluation in Section 2.3.5 of the Draft EIS

that explains why impacts in the table may not match the potential impact areas shown within the areas

of evaluation on Figure 5.4-1 of the Draft EIS. The scale of the figure will not change how the impacts are

shown. Figures 4-1 through 4-17 in Volume 2 of the permit application (see Appendix F), which was

submitted with the US Army Corps of Engineers permit application, illustrate the current estimated impact

of the preferred alternative.


Response to Comment K: The requested information has been submitted to the US Army Corps of

Engineers (March and June 2015) for review and to determine jurisdiction. That application information is

included in Appendix F.

Response to Comment L: The Draft EIS document is being updated via this condensed Final EIS;

therefore, a revised call out box is not included. However, a reference has been added to the beginning of

Chapter 5 referring the reader to the various water-resource related sections, including the utilities

section.


Response to Comment M: This modification is noted in Section 5.6 of the Final EIS. Manganika Lake does

not receive all of the surface water runoff from the project area, and the preferred alignment is not

expected to exacerbate the existing impairments that the MPCA has identified for the lake.

Response to Comment N: This modification is noted in Section 5.6 of the Final EIS. A SWPPP will be

prepared for the project, including the disturbed area that is tributary to Manganika Lake and Creek.


Response to Comment O: Figure 5.5-2 has been added to illustrate existing flow patterns, which have

been updated since the Drat EIS.

Response to Comment P: Existing and proposed drainage area mapping has been prepared (see Figure

5.5-2 and Appendix B, respectively). Mining excavation of the existing alignment will ultimately change the

drainage conditions such that stormwater is conveyed into the one or both of the pits. As a result, that

stormwater would be managed in conformance with the mining operations’ industrial stormwater permit.


Response to Comment Q: Notices and ballots were mailed to benefited receivers on February 18, 2015,

with notice of a public open house to be held on March 5, 2015. The City of Virginia also distributed flyers

door-to-door regarding the open house for the benefited receivers. Additional effort was made to reach

residents and owners of properties that did not respond to mailed ballots. MnDOT conducted door

knocking on two separate occasions and hand delivered ballots to unresponsive properties. For

properties that were vacant, extra effort was made to reach out to property owners in order to obtain a

partial vote for the property.

Refinements of the noise analysis during the project development process show that an additional seven

properties along the south end of Mesabi Drive will receive a noise benefit from the proposed noise wall.

As a result, a second open house was held on August 3, 2015 for these benefited receivers and each was

given the opportunity to vote on whether they want a noise wall.

With the refined analysis, MnDOT also determined that four parcels previously identified as benefitted

receivers would not benefit from the proposed noise barrier design. These receivers were also notified

that their voting status had changed.

The letter notification, ballot, benefitted receiver maps, open house flyer, and voting results are included

in Appendix G. Further details regarding the noise assessment update and notification/voting process are

described in Section 5.8 of the Final EIS.

Response to Comment R: The Curved Setback Option has been dismissed since the Draft EIS was

published. Impacts of the Curved Setback Option can be seen in the reformatted summary table of Draft

EIS alternatives and impacts included in Appendix H. The estimated vegetation impacts of the preferred

alternative are described in Section 5.10 of the Final EIS.

Response to Comment S: MnDOT will follow the guidance of the USFWS with regard to tree removal as it

relates to the northern long-eared bat. The majority of land in the project vicinity not in urban or wetland

use is in forest vegetation. Therefore, there would be minimal benefit to wildlife and/or water quality from

MnDOT voluntarily planting trees in the project vicinity.


Response to Comment T: New information from the northern long-eared bat study has been added to

Section 5.12 of the Final EIS. MnDOT will follow the guidance of the USFWS with regard to tree removal as

it relates to the northern long-eared bat.

Response to Comment U: Impacts of the preferred alternative on climate change are discussed in Section

5.16. As discussed in Section 5.6.3, detention ponds for the project have been designed per the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlas 14 precipitation data per MnDOT’s recently changed

design standard. Atlas 14 consists of updated precipitation data from weather stations nearest the

project site and generally increases the design storm events for each frequency compared to previous

rainfall intensity values.

Response to Comment V: While there is no current regulatory requirement to address greenhouse gas

emissions in environmental documents, MnDOT is currently working with contractors on possible

approaches for addressing construction equipment emissions. MnDOT will use feedback from a diesel

construction equipment survey of contractors to evaluate ways to reduce construction emissions

including incentives, education and outreach, promoting the use of federal grant funding for diesel

retrofitting, and consideration of a pilot project to reduce idling.


11.4 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources


Response to Comment A: MnDOT looks forward to reaching an agreement with the DNR on ferrous and

non-ferrous resource values.

Response to Comment B: Thank you for your review and comment. Concurrence is consistent with FHWA

and Department of Interior findings.

Response to Comment C: MnDOT is assessing the feasibility of a shared motorized/non-motorized trail on

the bridge. A 14-foot wide shared trail on the bridge is anticipated, which will widen to a separated 8-foot

paved pedestrian trail and a 12-foot gravel snowmobile/ATV trail off the bridge.


Response to Comment D: See response to comment C above.

Response to Comment E: The preferred alternative (Alternative E-2) does not require extensive

dewatering and will not impact other surface waters or fisheries.

Response to Comment F: The purpose of the water discharged to Bailey and Virginia Lakes is to maintain

water levels in the lakes, not temperature, as noted by the DNR. Section 5.2.2 of the Draft EIS correctly

states, “The pumping system can also divert water flow into Sauntry Creek system to supplement flow to

Bailey and Silver Lakes.” Correction noted regarding the VPU discharge; it is not intended to maintain

ambient temperatures in Bailey and Silver Lakes.


11.5 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency


Response to Comment A: Thank you for your review and comment.


11.6 Public Comments


Response to Comment A: See Section 4.4 of the Final EIS for a description of the trail plan.


Response to Comment B: MnDOT will implement winter maintenance operations that include snow

removal from the bridge after snow events to minimize the amount of runoff from the bridge. Snow will

not be plowed over the sides of the bridge. The bridge design will also include features that carry runoff

over the expansion joints to prevent direct runoff from the bridge into the pit. Runoff from the east bridge

approach will be collected on the east side of the bridge to minimize flow crossing the bridge/pit.

Similarly, stormwater pond(s) are planned on the west side of the bridge. All drainage from the bridge will

be carried to the west side and into the stormwater system, which will ultimately flow to the same location

to which the existing highway flows today.

Response to Comment C: MnDOT has evaluated both a friction course and an anti-icing system for the

bridge. A friction course consists of gluing small rock chips to the concrete deck with epoxy to enhance

traction. Anti-icing systems spray magnesium chloride on the deck. This method is expensive, corrosive to

concrete and steel, adds extra chlorides to the environment, and is maintenance-intensive to keep

operating. Therefore, MnDOT has elected to place a friction course on the deck.

Response to Comment D: This issue is being analyzed by geotechnical and bridge design engineers and

appropriate measures are being taken into the bridge design as well as right-of-way setbacks. The bridge

will be designed with consideration of future mining activity near the bridge to ensure blasting effects will

not compromise the support of the bridge. MnDOT will also implement setback agreements with RGGS

that will protect the integrity of the bridge from blasting and flyrock.


Response to Comment E: The preferred alternative is Alternative E-2 with the Interchange Option. One

signalized intersection at 2nd Avenue is included in the project. No stop signs will be used on the through

lanes of US 53.

F

US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth

Comment Form

January 22, 2015 Open House/Public Hearing ..

You may leave this completed form with us today by dropping it into the comment box. You may also email your comments to Pat Huston, MnDOT Project Manager, at [email protected] or mail this form to the following address:

Pat Huston, Project Manager MnDOT District 1 1123 Mesaba Avenue Duluth, MN 55811

Comments on the Draft EIS and FHWA's intent to make a de minimis determination regarding the project's impact to the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area (OHVRA) wi ll be accepted through February 5, 2015.

Additional space on back side

1



Response to Comment F: See Section 4.4 of the Final EIS for a description of the trail plan.


Comment Form

January 22, 2015 Open House/Public Hearing

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Email:


Pat Huston, Project Manager MnDOT District 1 . 1123 Mesaba Avenue Duluth, MN 55811

Comments on the Draft EIS and FHWA's intent to make a de minimis determination regarding the project's impact to the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area (OHVRA} will be accepted through February 5,

2015 .

./tJcbf2/l/6/ .epPt!! /&?Z? ~pvtJ /171/ 772/JI t_ ·

CtJ#/IVcVlrv'b , aourbf. ~·oaV& UV/a /Jnl /~t'( j/)J c4-/t?t8?A-C ffl~f 77J ('CJA/A/vt,T /1-1/l?V ~

/

772/J-a~ ~ LlJcA//V..S 7726/!A?t?ff£~

4/UI2 _:5'#diA/d(JL;/~L ·772/JR-/t!. L7eLZtJ0.> ~~/..-06 ~ tt!/!f//C//Vb pcfo,;{Jc£ &'1P r2(!JvU~ /06t~


pt/VOIA/6 70UPr-5~ ~aJI/~y TO //7l f' /"J:S /A/ ;/1/c£A

1



Response to Comment G: See Section 4.4 of the Final EIS for a description of the trail plan.

H


Comment Form


Name:

Address:

Phone:

Email:



Comments on the Draft EIS and FHWA's intent to make a de minimis determination regarding the project's impact to the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area (OHVRA) will be accepted through February 5, 2015.


1



Response to Comment H: See Section 4.4 of the Final EIS for a description of the trail plan.

US Highway 53 Virg inia to Eveleth

Comment Form


Name:

Address:

Phone:

Email:



Comments on the Draft EIS and FHWA's intent to make a de minimis determination regarding the project's impact to the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area (OHVRA) will be accepted through February S,

2015.


1



Response to Comment I: See Section 4.4 of the Final EIS for a description of the trail plan.


1

1

2 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

3 us Highway 5 3 Re routing

4 DRAFT EIS OPEN HOUSE/PUBLIC HEAR I NG

5

6

7

8

9 Ja nuary 22 , 2 0 1 5

1 0 6 :0 0 p. m.

11 Mo untain I ron Communi ty Center

1 2 858 6 Ente rpri s e Drive Sou th

1 3 Mo untai n I r o n, Minneso ta

14

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 REPORTE D BY : Paula Be rg


3

1 abou t having a spill on the b ridge going r ight

2 in to the water fo r the Rouch1eau, t he Richlea u

3 water supp l y t hat feeds t h e Virginia water supp l y .

4 And that' s my b i g gest worries i s t he

OS: 20~1~1 5 sa f ety o n t h a t br idge t h at wo u l d be bette r o ff -

6 I worked in t he mines f o r ove r

7 35 years.

8 To fi ll t h at area in and put a l a n d

9 b ridge ove r i t, no t a bridge.

Ot.i : :20:l 1 10 Th i s is l ess cost facto r because a

1 1 b r idge i s on l y good for 2 0 t o 25 yea r s and t hen

12 yo u have got a repair it, where a land bridge

13 doesn't cost that much.

1 4 You could build t hat a r ea in in about

15 fo u r or f ive months .

16 That's my comment.

0 6 : 2(1 ~1~1 17 That ' s i t . Th ank you .

18 MS. MARY McREYNOLDS: My name is Mary

19 Mc Re ynolds , a nd I h ave a comment tha t d e a ls wi th

2 0 safe t y concerning the in t ersection t ha t is t he

21 access to the lan df i l l road.

K 2 2 The heavy equipment that t he county

23 has go ing i n and o u t o f t h a t road , I ' m concerned

24 about the s p eed on Hi ghway 53 and t he abi l ity for

25 accele rati on l a nes in that p a rt icu l a r a rea for t he


Response to Comment J: MnDOT has considered safety in preliminary design of the bridge by minimizing

the slope on the bridge and avoiding use of a curved structure. MnDOT has elected to place a “friction

course” on the deck to enhance traction. This consists of gluing small rock chips to the concrete deck

with epoxy. MnDOT has also planned for spill containment measures by designing the bridge to have no

direct drainage into the Rouchleau Pit. All stormwater runoff from the road and bridge will be collected in

areas where emergency containment can be implemented if necessary.

With regards to the cost of a bridge versus fill, the Draft EIS (Section 2.3.5) described the differences in

constructability issues. The volume of fill alone is prohibitive given the depth of the pit combined with the

length and width of fill that would be needed, as well as the concerns with that much filing activity within

a half-mile of the water supply intake. The longevity of the bridge structure should exceed 75 years.


07 : 55PM 1 large trucks with heavy loads going out of the

07 : 5 5PM 2 landfill mostly , but also in cross i ng over Highway

07 : 55 PM 3 53 a n d i n the un control l ed i n te r sec t i on .

07 : 55PM 4 That ' s a l l .

5

6

7 (Th i s concluded the pub l ic statements

8 made i n Mountain Iron , Mi nnesota on January 2 2 ,

9 20 15 . )

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4


Response to Comment K: MnDOT has looked extensively at the intersection of US 53 and Landfill Road.

Acceleration lanes are not justified by current design standards; in addition, the very narrow right-of-way

does not provide room for including acceleration lanes. A northbound right turn lane and a southbound

left turn lane to Landfill Road will be constructed. The proposed design meets current design standards

for traffic safety considering traffic volumes, speed, and grade.


Haase, Rachel

From: John Motley··········· Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:10 AM To: Huston, Patrick (DOT) Subject: Hyw 53 relocation project

lAtter reviewing the information on this project I am convinced the Alternative E-2 is my preferred option. I will leave it L up to folks who are more informed than I am as to the Straight or Curved Setback Option. The minor impact to the

OHVRA is acceptable. Thank you for your consideration.


Response to Comment L: Thank you for your review and comment.


Haase, Rachel

From: Linnea Manning Date: February 5, 2015 at To: "[email protected] .us" <patrick.huston@state. mn.us> Subject: U.S. Hwy 53 Relocation Project

Dear Mr. Huston:

I am writing in regard to the US Hwy 53 Relocation Project and the meeting that I attended on January 22, 2015 . I must say that my faith in the project was renewed after attending the meeting, however, I have one concern that I wou ld like to express ... that being the Straight Option vs the Curved Option between Cuyuna Drive and MN 135.

I agree that the Alternative E-2 route is the best choice avai lable between all existing options, but it seems that the Curved Option would increase the cost of the project significantly, not to mention that the noi se level to the residents of Midway would also increase greatly. Being a

M resident of Midway myself, I am aware of the highway noise and the noise from the mine that currently exists. By adding the curved route, the Midway residents will have noise coming from the north and west which may create the need for a noise wall, which would in turn, greatly increase the cost of the project.

I believe that unnecessary costs would be avoided by just updating and reusing the existing N highway road bed. This would also all ow for the least amount of highway disturbance to the

Midway residents.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on thi s matter. I am excited to see and use the new E-2 roadway and bridge when it is fini shed. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely .

Linnea Manning

Sent from my iPad


Response to Comment M: The Straight Option has been selected as part of the preferred alternative. The

Curved Setback Option has been dismissed as described in Section 2.3 of the Final EIS.

Response to Comment N: The Straight Option does reuse much of the existing route of US 53/MN 135

exit ramp for the preferred alternative.


Response to Comment O: The reasons the western alternative was dismissed were explained in detail in

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Draft EIS and summarized in Section 2.1.1 of the Final EIS. This decision was

supported by an extensive economic study that indicated severe impacts would result from the western

alternative. The reasons for selection of the preferred alternative were provided in Section 10.3 of the

Draft EIS and in Section 2.3 of the Final EIS.

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental … 2015 US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth Final...

Documents

Transcript of Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental … 2015 US Highway 53 Virginia to Eveleth Final...